If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No SPAM wrote:
In article , says... If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. Not especially. Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations. Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e., jihadists against the West. However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt their image with the typical man on (their) street. It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support. In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it. Good insight! Just like 9/11. Vot? Grantland |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . (Peter Stickney) wrote in : In article , (Dav1936531) writes: From: (BUFDRVR) There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet suitcase nukes having disappeared from their inventory. What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of western nations. BUFDRVR We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too. Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage. If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for negligent management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror attack. Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally. We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal. I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what production batch the bomb pit was from. Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke. Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs. If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person could lift. You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position. Brooks -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Dav1936531" wrote in message ... From: (Peter Stickney) Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage. Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in an SUV and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb, they will suit Al-Qaeda's purpose I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small sized demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of delivery system such as an aircraft or artillery piece. No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary "mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as being based in real fact. Brooks Dave |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote: "Dav1936531" wrote in message ... From: (Peter Stickney) Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage. Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in an SUV and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb, they will suit Al-Qaeda's purpose I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small sized demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of delivery system such as an aircraft or artillery piece. No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary "mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as being based in real fact. ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade. What's the range of a 105 RR ? Of course it was an artist's sketch. The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters. Another bad idea IMHO. -- Al Dykes ----------- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:16:01 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Dav1936531" wrote in message ... Truth or terrorist bluff? Dave SYDNEY, Australia (March 21) - Osama bin Laden's terror network claims to have bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the biographer of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian television station. If #2 had suitcase nukes he would have used one, instead of being killed "attempting to escape". I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase" nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around in a suitcase? NO!!! Al Minyard |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote: snip No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary "mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as being based in real fact. Brooks Given the old Soviet propensity of duplicating, or attempting to duplicate, so many Western weapons systems, if only on the principle that if we had it they'd better have it too because even if they couldn't immediately see the utility of the system in question, no need to take chances (i.e., they couldn't afford to foster a "suitcase gap") -- how likely is it that they _wouldn't_ have developed such a device? David Windhorst |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Briefcase and Me | Bob McKellar | Military Aviation | 11 | December 24th 03 11:57 PM |